Case-finding for HPV vaccination eligibility within a dental office with concurrent development of a dialogue tool
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization can prevent cancers, but uptake has been incomplete (and worse with the COVID-19 pandemic). Dental clinicians already screen for oral cancers, many of which are caused by HPV, and could identify vaccination candidates, but this requires a case-finding strategy. Objective: The purpose of this study was (1) to develop and test a case-finding approach to identify patients who were candidates for HPV vaccinations, (2) to test an HPV vaccination intervention by dental professionals on vaccination uptake. Methods: Design: Prospective, non-randomized feasibility case finding study with a 4-week enrollment period and a 6 week follow up period in general dental offices.Setting: Two general and non-commercial dentistry offices in Edmonton, Alberta Canada.Subjects: Consecutive scheduled (non-emergent) patients who met the Health Canada criteria for HPV vaccination: immunocompetent males and females aged 9-45 years and those who are immunocompromised. Consent for the discussion was obtained from each subject or parent.Intervention: Scheduled dental patients meeting the inclusion criteria were flagged by a research assistant who reviewed the appointment schedule each week for 4 weeks. For these subjects, dental clinicians (dentists and dental hygienists) used our Dental Dialogue Tool to discuss HPV vaccination and answer questions. Participating patients who consented to receive the HPV vaccine were given a prescription by the attending dentist and were directed to follow-up with a local pharmacy to have the vaccine administered. Each participant that was provided with an HPV prescription was contacted after 6 weeks to identify if they received the first dose of vaccine.Outcomes: Yield of our case-finding strategy and receipt of a patient's first HPV vaccine dose during 6 weeks post vaccine prescription. Results: Our case-finding strategy assessed 656 scheduled patients over 4 weeks. From this screening,179 (a case-finding yield of 20.4 %), were candidates for HPV vaccine discussion. Forty-three of these 179 patients (24 %) were already vaccinated.. Two patients (1.1 %) did not consent to be spoken with and 134 (74.8 %) consented to the HPV vaccine discussion.. Forty-eight of 134 patients (35.8 %) of patients accepted a prescription from the dentist after speaking with the dental clinician. Ultimately, 8/48 (16 %) (patients received their first dose of the HPV vaccine by the 6 week of follow-up call. However, this is only 4.5 % (8/177) of those patients who did consent for the discussion of HPV cancers and vaccination from their dentist. Conclusion: We demonstrated that case-finding for HPV vaccine candidates in general dental offices was feasible, with a reasonable yield. While the dental dialogue tool was described as a great resource to explain the facts and answer questions, very few patients were vaccinated after 6 weeks of follow-up. Further work is necessary to sharpen the intervention, perhaps including follow-up discussions with the dental clinicians.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».